欢迎来到51Due,请先 | 注册
关注我们: 51due论文代写二维码 51due论文代写平台微博
英国论文代写,英国essay代写知名品牌微信

Paper代写范文

为您解决留学中生活、学习、工作的困难、疑惑
释放自我

英国paper代写- Exploring Nature and Nurture

2017-06-15 | 来源:51due教员组 | 类别:Paper代写范文

本篇英国paper代写- Exploring Nature and Nurture 讲了Montag et.al(2016)通过双胞胎学习设计调查了自然的相对性和个人情感之间的差异。研究提出了一个问题:什么可以帮助我们调查遗传学和环境对个人情绪差异的影响?本篇英国paper代写由51due英国论文代写平台整理,供大家参考阅读。


This paper was prepared for Psychology 101, taught by Professor Sweiss.

Annotation 1

Montag, C., Hahn, E., Reuter, M., Spinath, F., Davis, K., & Panksepp, J. (2016). The Role of Nature and Nurture for Individual Differences in Primary Emotional Systems:Evidence from a Twin Study. PLoS ONE , 11(3), pp. 1-15.

In this research article, Montag et.al (2016) investigated the relativity of nature and nurture on the difference between individual emotions through their twin study design. The study raised the question: What can help us investigate the impacts of our genetics and the environment on individual differences of emotions? The purpose of the question is to fully understand the factors, both psychological and psychopathological, that affects humans. The author gave examples on the link between ADHD and lack of PLAY behavior in childhood as well as depression and activation of SADNESS system. By pointing out that former studies has discovered how the neuropsychological emotional networks respond to major processes and its influence on the diversity of psychological and behavioral stages, the author noted that seven primal emotions are foundational for higher processes. The author then goes on to divide the primary emotional systems into two groups, positive and negative, and combined them with the major measurement of the study. Here, individual differences in these primary emotional systems were measured with Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales, or ANPS, which is a contrast to classical measurements such as the Five Factor Model of Personality. The study had a total of 795 participants, in which there are 303 monozygotic twins, 172 dizygotic twins, 267 non-twin siblings, and 53 other individuals. The median age is 30.2 and 72.8% of the participants are women. The questionnaire of the study was designed based on the version of German ANPS which measures individual differences for up to 110 items, ranging according to the four-point Likert scale. Participants are asked of their opinions ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Data collection is mainly based on the questionnaire of all participants and statistical analyses were conducted according to the results. The results showed that all scales of ANPS are genetics-influenced, but they vary in terms of degrees. The findings indicate the assumption that general influences of both the genetic factors and non-shared environmental factors are important to individuals. Also, the study showed that individual differences in emotional systems are linked with the interaction of dopaminergic, serotonergic, and oxytocinergic genetic markers. Limitations noted by the author are that the cognitive approach does not capture emotions that affect neuroscience directly. What is more, the sample size is not big enough to be fully representative of the whole population. Finally, the twin design also has its own limitations regarding the assumptions. In conclusion, the research demonstrated that ANPS can be used as a key tool for understanding the individual differences in biologically oriented psychology studies. 

This research article is useful for me to learn about the major tool in deciding the impact of nature and nurture on human’s emotional differences. Throughout the article I see a clear logic among the authors’ view and their methodology of ANPS, which is quite new to me. As the authors have noted, the study is a first in the exploration of genetics and environmental impacts on individual differences of emotions by twin-sibling study design. Although the design of study is adapted from German version of twin study, it still makes a lot of sense which informs readers to be aware of the factors both genetically and environmentally. The article also compares the ANPS with the Five Factors Models of Personality as they both use the method of surveys to collect data. I was wondering if other methods such as focus groups or interviews could be done in this situation, as they might reveal the intentions of study and twists the results from neutral. Therefore I wonder how exactly the different genetic models affect emotions in their particular ways. What are the substantial differences in detail of the ANPS and Big Five regarding the seven systems of emotions? What non-environmental variables besides the ones mentioned in the article can be listed that impact the same family members? How do the environmental and genetic factors impact on each other and to what extent does it affect the mind? In terms of the survey itself, what can be done to increase its sample size? I look forward to read more about this study and follow up with the latest results conducted in the same field. 

Annotation 2

Goodwyn, E. (2010). Approaching archetypes: reconsidering innateness. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 55, pp. 502-521.

In this research article, Goodwyn (2010) looked into the study of innateness, which belonged to the category of Jungian psychology. The author pointed out that there has been a debate over the archetypes in Jung’s theory and the idea has gone through harsh criticism both in and out of the Jungian psychology. Toward the new concept that Jung’s theory of innate psychological prior structures shall be abandoned, the author decided to question such idea and prove that innate structure is more than common in psychology. The author started by stating the definitions of innate human nature, behavior and related arguments in Jungian theory, indicating that what Jung held was against the dominant theory of behaviorists and constructionists. Jung believed that there exists a psychic system of innateness, the archetypes, which can be inherited. On the contrary, behaviorists believed that human brains are learning machines with not pre-existing structures. Constructionists viewed on the other hand that there are few genes to form the innateness of minds and the concept of archetype should be reconsidered developmentally. The author showed that a classical biological approach conducted by Stevens reconfirmed the existence of archetypes, which had been criticized, and decided to question such criticism by listing works in neuroscience to show that not all of them question innateness. The author then goes on to explore the critiques of innateness and the specific theories that pronounced such criticisms. Scholars that lean towards such ideas include Knox, Saunders, Skar, McDowell, and Merchant, saying that archetypes are no longer necessary in psychological studies. The author cited many words from Panksepp to argue against the above ideas of opponents and stated the importance of innateness and archetypes. In evolutionary psychology (EP), scholars demonstrated that learning is domain-specific instead of general, as a result of the revolution of human race, and there exists the substance called domain specific algorithms (DSA) telling the brain what to learn about. Scholars including Steven Pinker, Jaak Panskepp, and Joseph LeDoux all expressed in their researches that an innate existence of archetypes. Ethology also contributed data on the learning process and mechanisms, given the fact that its researches on animals give support on DSAs. By looking into EP more carefully, the author found that scholars have stated that the brain is not a passive machine that records things happening in the world, but instead creating contents of its own. This idea was agreed by EPists as well as cognitive neuroscientists. He then went on to explain the term ‘innate’ and noted the characteristics in psychology literature. The author pointed out that DSA does not equal to archetype as the latter attempt to answer the question of the quantity the mind has as of innate structure. The result established throughout the article was that there is plenty of innate structure in literature of different fields. 

This research article is useful for me to learn about major scholar’s ideas on innateness, archetypes, and major concepts in debate over the history of psychology. The Jungian theory has been long respected and yet challenged in recent years, and the author stood out to defend the core idea of archetypes and innateness as they have major impact in psychology. This helps me to explore the topic of nature and nurture of human’s brain as it’s my area of interest. What is more, the author also mentioned Panskepp as a supportive theory of innateness, that brain is not a blank paper for the environment to write on, but rather contains pre-existing algorithms. Compared to the other article that focus on empirical research and surveys, this article is a study that lists the strong literatures which backs up the idea of Jungian theory of psychology. After reading the article, I have a few wonders remained. What is the exact difference between DSAs and innateness, as the author has emphasized they are different things? Did the author only included paragraphs of certain scholars to support his argument but intentionally left out those in question? For non-experts in psychology, what can be learnt from the literature of innateness that both contain support and criticism? I believe that reading works of Panskepp, other EPists, even Jung himself can help me understand the above questions better. What is more, I would like to know that when citing argumentum articles like this one, what could be used as evidence and what could not be. I might use this one as a informative source in my future article on nature and nurture as it provides deep, thorough arguments on innateness of human brain. 

References

Goodwyn, E. (2010). Approaching archetypes: reconsidering innateness. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 55, pp. 502-521.

Montag, C., Hahn, E., Reuter, M., Spinath, F., Davis, K., & Panksepp, J. (2016). The Role of Nature and Nurture for Individual Differences in Primary Emotional Systems:Evidence from a Twin Study. PLoS ONE , 11(3), pp. 1-15.


要想成绩好,英国论文得写好,51due英国论文代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯,专业辅导,还为你提供专业英国essay代写,paper代写,report代写,需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ:800020041或者wechat:Abby0900吧。—Ace

我们的优势

  • 05年成立,已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 团队成员都毕业于全球著名高校
  • 保证原创,支持检测

英国站